Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday November 22, 2012 @04:14PM
from the mandatory-transparency dept.

another random user writes with this news from the BBC: "A U.S. judge has ordered Apple to disclose details of its patent-sharing deal with HTC to its rival, Samsung. Apple and HTC signed a 10-year licence agreement earlier this month, but did not make the details public. Samsung, which is also involved in various patent disputes with Apple, asked the courts to tell Apple to furnish the information. It said it was 'almost certain' the deal covered some of the patents at the centre of its dispute with Apple. The court ordered Apple to produce a full copy of the settlement agreement 'without delay,' subject to an 'attorneys' eyes only' designation, meaning it will not be made public."

You'll lose that bet. Samsung is cool and level headed. Apple is known for childish antics like their "apology" to Samsung in the UK. Samsung's legal team are professionals. Apple grabbed the headlines with a billion dollar settlement, but it will be Samsung that has the last laugh. Samsung will easily get that verdict overturned on appeal. They are professionals, not amatuers like Apple legal.

First Samsung has copied no more from apple then apple has from samsung, actually probably less.
Also the fact that you are ignoring apples first attempt at the court order shows how much of a fanboy you are.

Also, Apple had complied with the court's order. Obviously, did the minimum they felt they could get away with but any company would do the same thing. The judges in Europe are a bunch of fucking tyrants.

I don't doubt that Apple would consider doing something like that, just to cast aspersions on Samsung in court. In trust, such secret settlement contracts should be illegal anyway, as they are prime building blocks for trust making activity.

let Apple, Samsung, and the judge find it out from their own preferred newspapers, and then we'll REALLY get this battle on from all the, uh, hmm, perceived spins put on strictly running the wire copy without changing a comma. it'll be like locking them all in a room and never opening the door after the noise stops.

Yeah we do. I can understand HTC and Apple wanting confidentiality, there's all sorts of confidentiality clauses and Samsung seemed happy at first with the redacted document. Clearly the judge isn't and has ordered this limited disclosure.

It looks like HTC asked for the redactions and Samsung accepted.

"HTC has advised the parties that it is willing to acquiesce to Apple’s production of the agreement on two conditions: (1) the Agreement must be marked Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the protective order; and (2) the consideration amount must be redacted," Apple said, "Samsung has agreed to both conditions."

... when, instead of competing fairly and squarely with Samsung, they decided to drag Samsung's Galaxy products through the courts and get their sales banned in several different territories, including several European countries. Samsung's products are well priced, well designed, well manufactured and ooze a sense of "quality" overall, while Apple is more of an "electronics fashion brand" in its marketing approach, catering to i-fanboys and i-fangirls who'll buy anyhing branded "Apple". ------ Face it, Apple: You cannot compete with a behemoth like Samsung by trying to twist the courts/the law to your advantage. Put some proper innovation on the market before Samsung, which makes seriously good products, rolls right over you... Good luck to you, because Samsung are seriously good at product design...

I own a Samsung smartphone, tablet computer and laptop. Each product was well priced, well designed and quality built and works flawlessly so far. I've had zero issues with any of these products. So yes, I appreciate the quality Samsung brings to the market. Does that make me a fanboy? Hardly.

Nope. Acknowledging the quality of Apple's products does not make you a fanboy. Defending Apple's legal practices and bully approach regarding their distributors, competitors and customers does, though, especially when you are directly and negatively affected by it..

Except I am not sure what version of the iphone is built well, every one I have seen and the 2 I have owned have been trash, and I can get a laptop with similar specs to a macbook for half the price and a better warranty .

Except I am not sure what version of the iphone is built well, every one I have seen and the 2 I have owned have been trash, and I can get a laptop with similar specs to a macbook for half the price and a better warranty.

H'mmm... I'm not certain that's true. I'll start by saying that I don't own and have never owned any Apple product (whereas I have owned, for example, some Microsoft mice). I don't like their approach to software freedom, and I'm not going to give them my money. But when last buying a laptop I seriously considered a MacBook Air (and I've given one to my niece).

As I say, I don't like Apple, and it seemed silly to buy a MacBook and take MacOS off it. Instead, I bought an Asus Zenbook. It's a nice machine, goo

I believe Apple owns a patent on the connector otherwise many other will use it as well. Also my Asus laptop, 1600 blows my friends 2500 macbook laptop out of the water and when we each had issues with our computers apple was much harder to deal with then Asus.

Nope. Acknowledging the quality of Apple's products does not make you a fanboy. Defending Apple's legal practices and bully approach regarding their distributors, competitors and customers does, though, especially when you are directly and negatively affected by it..

So I can acknowledging the quality of Apple's products is poor and not be called a "hater".

Yes I said it, the quality of Apple's products are poor, they break easily, are not designed for human use (back button in the top left corner) use low quality audio components and need I remind anyone of Antennagate (if you want to defend that, remember that your holding it wrong). But none of this bothers me. If all Apple did was sell crappy gadgets at exorbitant prices I wouldn't give a crap about them. What I don't like is the fact they want to sue anyone who makes a semi-successful competing product so I have no choice to buy their crappy gadgets.

Yes, if you are accurate and objective in your analysis you can do such a thing without being a "hater". "Hater" and "Fanboy" are terms better reserved for people who are overly emotional and often irrational about what they defend or attack.

Maybe it's because other products are so much cheaper than Apple's, or maybe it's because Apple's products are still significantly more useful than their competition, but I have only ever seen iPhones with significantly cracked and broken screens. Hell, even my HTC Sensation, which is fairly slimsy and receives a lot of abuse (it's in my pocket all the time, including during brutal SD winters (2 so far), climbing in engine bays and under vehicles, dropped on the ground multiple tim

My 6 and 8 year old have been the sole users of an HTC HD2 for the past year (a phone that I did more damage to than they have in the two years it was in my pocket). It's just fine, though the finish has started to wear off the metal.

Personally my observations show that smartphones break at about the same rate no matter who manufactured them. Most of the current generation of devices use Gorilla Glass for their screens which is rather durable, but all glass will fail when sufficient force is applied in a small enough area. That's a lesson I learned in fire fighter training. We learned that a flat bladed screwdriver was far more effective at breaking a window than a hammer. The same is true of a smartphone screen when it falls onto t

According to dryriver, anyone who likes Apple products is a fanboy but anyone who likes Samsung's products is just normal and appreciates a well designed product. So, yes! I hope you're properly ashamed.

There's some truth to that. Most Apple purchasers tend to have a large amount of brand loyalty, whereas most Samsung customers tend to buy it because they like the product rather than the company.

e.g. someone might buy a Samsung android based phone and when it gets obsolete, they'll probably look around for the best price/performance android phone without being overly worried about who makes it.

I agree - there's a whole spectrum of different people who buy Apple, but they do seem to inspire brand loyalty. Personally I'm no fan of Apple the company, but my work has provided me with an iPhone and an iPad, so I do get to use their products. I must say that I hate iTunes software - I'm a linux guy and I have to keep a laptop with Windows on it just to run iTunes.

I used to use an Android phone (HTC HD2) and I preferred the OS to iOS, but there's not much between them. I just wish that Apple would sto

Actually when the iPhone first came out I recall RIM started trying to sue Apple over email push delivery to try and block Apple from obtaining a large business user client base. They were able to make technical changes to the iPhone push delivery model to get out from underneath that particular patent. So, pointing out RIM as an example may not be the best option.

Apple claims that patents in question are so valuable, that you can not price them in money. Therefore (according to Apple), Samsung products should be banned from the market. Samsung wants to prove that Apple sold those patents to HTC and therefore they have monetary price. If they have a price, Samsung products should not be banned. Even if the product is found to be infringing, Samsung would have to pay money instead of having banned product.

No, it's probably all about the actual terms - they want to know if Apple, in their previous negotiations, has been trying to get Samsung to pay significantly more than the value used when calculating the HTC-Apple agreements.

Why would it matter to Samsung if the deal between Apple and HTC concerns some patents that are in dispute?

erm.. you think maybe that Samsung are happy to get it dealt with in one single go, and not go on a patent rampage like apple are doing and being total fucking asshats about?
dealing with it like this Samsung can then find that Apple quite possibly extorted a deal from HTC based on patents they don't own.. that would not be HTC's fault but apples.

Why would it matter to Samsung if the deal between Apple and HTC concerns some patents that are in dispute?

Apple has alleged that Samsung has caused them 'irreparable harm' by violating their patents, and has requested (and in somes cases gotten) injunctions against Samsung products in several cases now.

Samsungs counter argument is essentially:

(disputed assumption 1) Assuming your patents are valid, and (disputed assumption 2) Assuming we infringed those patents, then: its still not irreparable harm. Apple settled with HTC on those same patents which suggests that infringing those patents isn't irreparable, and that money can 'repair' the harm after all, and that therefore an injunction isn't needed.

Of course its all moot if Samsung is able to get assumption 1 or 2 invalidated, but they're fighting this case at every level.

It helps because there are patents apple states it cannot and will not license to others because of the harm it would cause them. If they licensed them to HTC then that proves at worst they were wrong, and at worst they lied to the court.

That's it exactly. Considering how truly brutal this has been so far, I fully expect the Samsung lawyers to go in hard on the 'lying to the court on the value of the patents' aspect of it.
It's not just that they were willing to put some value, but the actual amount. Apple valued it at 20-30 bucks in the court, if it also turns out that it was a few cents, that brings the billion dollar settlement down to 'oh, is that all? here, let me rummage in my pocket for some loose change' territory (at least in Sa

It should also be noted that, in case it wasn't already obvious, HTC is much smaller than Samsung in the mobile space. It thus would not be hypocritical or illogical for Apple to be able to assert that Samsung caused irreparable harm while HTC did not, since if Samsung displaced a significant amount of market share that would have otherwise gone to Apple, Apple would indeed be irreparably harmed, given that they will likely never recover that. In contrast, losing a miniscule amount to HTC is something that

It should also be noted that, in case it wasn't already obvious, HTC is much smaller than Samsung in the mobile space. It thus would not be hypocritical or illogical for Apple to be able to assert that Samsung caused irreparable harm while HTC did not

That's fair, but things do get a bit weird when something is 'for sale' to one customer but not to another. Its ok to negotiate different prices for different customers... but to tell one customer the product isn't for sale to them at any price can get one in t

Eventually, make this whole patent/licensing/royalty an open market. The gov't grants you a patent. Fine. You get to decide what its worth. No problem. So, put up a 'For Sale' sign. You want $X per unit to use your technology. You accept that price from any buyers.

This would go a long way toward ending patents as a club to selectively beat competitors over the head. And once we put a stop to that nonsense, companies will be a lot less enamored with their patent portfolios.

Like I said: Its a start. And an open market is by no means insignificant. If everyone pays the same for a patent, then the holder can't discriminate against one manufacturer or in favor of another. The value of a patent portfolio as a tool for market manipulation is diminished. And the lobbying pressure to keep the system as is is diminished.

Samsung is one of the largest manufactures in the world and sells components to just about every other company in the world. They have something in virtually every TV, computer, cellphone, tablet... Name a modern electrical appliance and it probably has Samsung part in it.

Apple is a designer brand that only sells finished products to consumers.

Apple gives HTC a good deal because there isn't as much of a mess in the courts with them vs Samsung. Then Samsung wants the info so they can claim that the award Apple got was too large. Nice. Sorry but companies can sell things to customers at different prices for whatever reason they want including but not limited to how much of a jerk you are.

"Earlier this month Samsung asked that the court force Apple to turn over its settlement agreement with HTC, and today US Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted that requested. According to Samsung, the document could play a vital role in determining whether it will need to take any of its products off the market in the wake of the $1.049 billion verdict Apple won back in August. If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return â" and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified."

In plain text: Apple: no injunctions for you and drop the damages you ask to what you can actually negotiate in the marketplace.

If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return Ã" and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified."

This could be bad though, not just for Apple, but Motorola AND Samsung.

Remember, Motorola and Samsung are arguing for injunctions against iDevices for violating FRAND patents. If Samsung is indeed arg

Actually, Motorola offered Apple to license the patents, and Apple declined. So your argument is moot. Motorola was willing to license. Apple now tries to weazle out of the FRAND story by claiming that Motorola's prices weren't FRAND conform, but they got laughed out of court in Wisconsin already about this.

There is always an amount of money that someone will license something for you (at least if they or their shareholders are sane). The court put a value on the damage of 1+ B they didn't say: "oh we don't know so we won't award anything." or "we agree irreprable harm so Apple you now own Samsung". They put a value on it.

Now the value you put on it depends on the type of customer you have to deal with. Do you have to deal with a customer that rips your stuff off and only pays you after a legal battle? Or do y

... in *ANY* of these lawsuits. (Don't forget, there are a whole lot more companies throwing suits around in the mobile space than just Apple and Sansung.) If those previously-confidentail settlements can be dragged out into the public courts; there's no longer a way for the companies involved to come to a cease fire that allows both sides to save face.

Without that ability, watch all parties go for nothing but the full-out nuclear option in the future. There's no reason to do anything else.

Is this fair to HTC, or does it give Samsung a further competitive advantage over them, given that they probably had something to gain in their agreement with Apple and keeping it from Samsung's eyes? HTC need all the help they can get.